Ann O'Maly

I have not noticed you taking any rest from your 'work.'

As you already mentioned, the "Kingdom Ministry" in September 2007 answered this question by saying: " 'the faithful and discreet slave' does not endorse any literature, meetings, or Web sites that are not produced or organized under its oversight."
I wonder how they could have known that for sure. Did they take a survey of 9,500 different persons? After all, in 2007 the "faithful and discreet slave" consisted of about 9,500 persons who all claimed to be part of that "faithful and discreet slave." And the Governing Body who also claimed to be part of that slave, claimed in 2007 that all the persons who were of the anointed remnant class were included in that slave class, not just the Governing Body. 
It was not until June 2009, that the Watchtower claimed that, even though all the anointed remnant were still part of that slave class, that only the Governing Body could represent them in "giving food at the proper time." To prove it, a scripture was quoted that had previously been used to prove exactly the opposite. The full context quoted should make it clear why this passage could be used to show that all the anointed remnant were part of the slave. But this time only the red portion of the passage was suggested for reading, and only the red, bolded, underlined portion below was actually quoted in the paragraphs:
(1 Corinthians 12:14-13:3) 14 For, indeed, the body is made up not of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has arranged each of the body members just as he pleased. 19 If they were all the same member, where would the body be? 20 But now they are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” or again, the head cannot say to the feet, “I do not need you.” 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary, 23 and the parts of the body that we think to be less honorable we surround with greater honor, so our unseemly parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 whereas our attractive parts do not need anything. Nevertheless, God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that had a lack, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but its members should have mutual concern for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you individually is a member. 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? 30 Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are interpreters, are they? 31 But keep striving for the greater gifts. And yet I will show you a surpassing way. 13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and understand all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I do not benefit at all. This next scripture, also used in the past to show that all the remnant were part of the "slave" class, was not quoted this time, although it says essentially the same thing:
(Ephesians 2:19-22) 19 So you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, 20 and you have been built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, while Christ Jesus himself is the foundation cornerstone. 21 In union with him the whole building, being harmoniously joined together, is growing into a holy temple for Jehovah. 22 In union with him you too are being built up together into a place for God to inhabit by spirit. It was not until a talk in October 2012 and a Watchtower dated July 15, 2013 that the Governing Body finally claimed to be the "faithful and discreet slave" and changed the doctrine in a way that removed the rest of the remnant from the slave class.

Legally, the WT has a basis to protect their literature from the few embittered ones who manipulate it to mislead others. But most anti-JW websites I see are pretty focused on referencing WT literature exactly as it is...they have no desire to twist it. They completely disagree with the core views of JWs, so cheap tactics like manipulation/photoshoppery aren't necessary. And to falsify content would discredit their own cause.
I'm not arguing against the validity of copyright law, but copyright doesn't come from the Bible. It's a man-made law. The Bible doesn't come with copyrights. It was offered free to all by God, and no one can say "I own this book so don't use it in a way I don't like."
The org has made 2 statements that when combined are concerning:
1. It is the exclusive source of true spiritual food. 
2. Its content is copyrighted.
If the org truly believes both of these things, then they must believe they legally own true Bible discussion and interpretation. But they're actually blending the Bible and man-made laws to achieve this control. It feels icky. And they also feel they can police organic discussions on the internet. I'm sorry, but I can't help but see that as a control grab.

The only problem with those is when used in the wrong setting they are distracting and take away from the real issue. It's annoying when the messenger is attacked, instead of the message.

Haha. You do not know my and Neil's history or the biting insults he's hurled my way in our time. We are both broad-shouldered and we understand each other. He evidently enjoys a good pummelling or he wouldn't keep coming back for more. 

"Stick with what we have authorized. You'll be safe." The article just underlines AMIII's admonishment and warning that 'unauthorized' internet activity exposes JWs to "spiritual danger."
Is this forum and those like it GB authorized and approved? Of course not. 
And remember the Question Box from the km 9/07?
"Stick with what we have authorized."
There will always be those who love to research and openly discuss their views online, and thereby have to rationalize away the GB's clear counsel. I say GOOD! because this new article is another attempt at information control.
 

I'm amazed (or am I? I shouldn't be really) that you still claim this, repeating the Proclaimers book's error. I've lost count how many times you've been corrected on this point over the past decade or so by several individuals. @JW Insider has just corrected you again! and yet you persist. 
I'll c&p a portion of my email to you from 2012:
Readers can see for themselves: https://www.scribd.com/document/299825677/The-Even-Tide-by-John-Aquila-Brown-1823
 

"Stick with what we have authorized. You'll be safe." The article just underlines AMIII's admonishment and warning that 'unauthorized' internet activity exposes JWs to "spiritual danger."
Is this forum and those like it GB authorized and approved? Of course not. 
And remember the Question Box from the km 9/07?
"Stick with what we have authorized."
There will always be those who love to research and openly discuss their views online, and thereby have to rationalize away the GB's clear counsel. I say GOOD! because this new article is another attempt at information control.
 

“you wanna go out there…it’s at your spiritual risk”.  Sounds like fear-mongering. 
What spiritual risk.  Being disfellowshipped for uncovering a lie, or two or three…and not keeping quiet about it.   
“If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”   Albert Einstein
 

Assyrian chronology was synchronized with Egyptian chronology and those 20 years are hard to find because of this. The father you go back in time -  the gap becomes more than 300 years.  To meticulously count and use Bible chronology here is better than any secular sources....the secular sources are not reliable.
 
This is the best SECULAR date to SYNCRONIZE with a Biblical date....and work your dates back from this point.....  And what is more this date is accepted by all biblical and secular scholars as accurate. Greek and Babylonian sources can be used to come to the same conclusion -  without a doubt. If you are a meticulous scholar you will choose the best date that can be corroborated from various sources and work back from there
This is where the bigger picture (overall consistency of the promises of Jehovah) comes in - to understand the entire administration of Jehovah throughout the ages and how he has given timelines to prove periodically to those people which he is using at the time (for his purpose) that his "restoration project' for the earth is still on track and on time and moving ahead to its full completion.
This proves the accuracy of the entire bible and its "reality" so one knows this is the absolute truth - not just a blind faith - because the evidence is there that everything is happening on time in its outcome is reliable. It gives your faith vigor to know exactly where you are in time.
Prophesy a few hundred years ahead of time on many occasions carried the nation that Jehovah was using to go forward and wait for fulfilmment and "see the hand" of Jehovah! 
How many worldly people do this?  When people learn the truth from JWs they are impressed by the logic they have never seen before in the explanation of Jehovah's purpose and the many things they learn about the mortality of the soul, the last days and where we are in the time line - and it all fits into a logical picture.  This carries them for a long time and often is sufficient until death. No fault in that.....       To be a good debater is not important but to understand the truth and obey Jehovah.
No extra points to us older folks who start scratching under the surface.....  I just did this years ago because I had a need...... and the time line and the "overall" consistency of definite time points being met by Jehovah exactly as predicted (70 weeks prophecy - the world empires and 1914 ) also contributed to me seeing the entire Bible as the only "reality" there is.....  so I am glad I did the exercise.  I often use this when talking to atheists! ... to prove the bible is the only source of reality. I use it together with things happening on the ground.
I always ask:  why am I doing this?  or this other person doing this?  This is why I ask the questions here on this forum when I see scriptures being misapplied or so much credence given to secular material (that is not proven to be infallible) and this held up to discredit the dates given by the slave and therefore the entire "administration" of Jehovah throughout the ages being called into question.  
It indicates a lack of understanding of the overall bigger picture....  and it seems to be a process where people are bogged down in one small area of detail only to be failing to see the wonder and miracle of a larger overall "reality".     Failing to understand 1914 really water's the truth down somewhat and allows one to automatically reject many of the scriptures that are available to show where we are in the stream of time such the dream of Nebuchadnezzar relating to the gentile times.
Faith is important - but Jehovah knew that us simple folks - we always need small steps to look forward to and he lovingly gave it to us.... and what is more.... the proof of the pudding is the eating....... world events since 1914 has proven that it is a 'reality'...... We will soon be seeing the last prophecies regarding Babylon the great, the call to peace and security...and the 8th king in action.... as a matter of fact - religions seem to be riding the beast as we speak..... 
 
 

Ok. So how is what you said previously even relevant then? And does it make sense that something that is a complex subject, frequented only by a minority, should play such a decisive role by which all are judged either favorably or unfavorably as @Arauna seems to point out.
And by the way what's wrong with the French brother Gerard Gertoux, is he not competent in chronology?
 

Anna
Well, I did say that Chronology is 'extremely complex subject so it is not surprising that only a very few Witnesses would be competent in explaining 607 and 1914. In fact, amongst the entire worldwide brotherhood there are possibly only two brothers who have publicly demonstrated competence in Chronology and these brothers are Rolf Furuli in Norway and Neil Mc Fadzen from Australia.
scholar JW
 

I agree completely, but this is just it, and here is the problem: How many friends that you know actually do this?? As opposed to how many just accept the information they are presented with by the organization? How many friends that you know can actually explain 607 and 1914? Be honest?

I'm amazed (or am I? I shouldn't be really) that you still claim this, repeating the Proclaimers book's error. I've lost count how many times you've been corrected on this point over the past decade or so by several individuals. @JW Insider has just corrected you again! and yet you persist. 
I'll c&p a portion of my email to you from 2012:
Readers can see for themselves: https://www.scribd.com/document/299825677/The-Even-Tide-by-John-Aquila-Brown-1823
 

I think you might be coming to rash conclusions when you say those trying to disprove 1914 are doing so only to discredit the Slave. I am not saying no one does that, but I feel that those who honestly try to understand WT dates, and then find these dates faulty, do it the other way around. They begin to distrust the Slave on the evidence of their findings. Please don't attack me for saying this as I myself have not found proof for 607 or 587 either way. I am in a completely privileged neutral zone. I am neither for nor against. One thing I have noticed though, and excuse me if I am wrong,  (I may have missed your other posts), but it seems you have not presented any solid counter argument  against  587, only your feelings in that it's like "running after fluff", and criticism and motives of those who present arguments against 607. What you say would not stand up in a trial at all.  It's like the opposition is talking about apples and you are talking about oranges. The opposition is talking about dates and numbers, and you are talking about feelings and motives and evidence on the ground....
I don't think anyone is arguing with you on this at all.
What I find fascinating, and puzzling at the same time though, is how some friends will immediately class others as defectors if they do not believe in 607 or 1914. To give an example, on another forum, one poster made the comment that we should be wary of this one particular JW scholar because he does not support 607. Why it is so imperative to you and others, that in order to belong to this NATION, one has to believe in some specific date? In practical terms, what on earth is the saving attribute of a date? Yes, I know it was supposed to be the establishment of God's kingdom, which is the instrument by which all things will be reconciled to God, but come on, are we to be SO fixated on a date where believing in it or not is the difference between being saved or damned? God's kingdom will accomplish all those things regardless of the date it is established, won't it? As was pointed out quite clearly in the 2017 convention video, we are dedicated to Jehovah God, not a date! Surely a date has no baring on your sentiments above about the NATION ?

I think that if beginning today, the Slave never mentioned the dates 607 or 1914  again, but merely the destruction of Jerusalem, and  God's Kingdom, no one would be upset and think we have gone apostate. Probably no one but a few who are keyed in, and those at Bethel, would even notice. In fact, the new generation of Witnesses as I have observed does not even believe Armageddon will come any time soon. (I have heard some young ones speculate around 50 years). And the generation who believed their children would not grow up in this system, but who have grand children now, have reconciled themselves with the possibility that they will die before Armageddon comes. I think this is good. Because remember, we serve Jehovah, not a date. Abraham never saw the complete fulfillment of the promise made to him either, what makes us think we have to? Don't get me wrong, it would be nice of course, but I refuse to get anxious  for a date, or even an approximate time period. You have probably seen me quote a father talking to his daughter saying "plan ahead as if Armageddon won't come in your lifetime but lead your life as if it will come tomorrow". The father is long dead, and the daughter possibly too, as she was born in 1923. You can read her life story in  w04 12.1 Trusting in Jehovah’s Loving Care.
In any case, all this talk about the gentile times calculations are not something Russell came up with. The originator of these calculations was William Miller of the second Adventists. (of course there were others even before him, but Russell associated with Miller). So if we go and dig down to the grass roots, to find the beginning of this idea,  really, we have William Miller to thank for it. But I'm not quite comfortable with that thought. I'm not comfortable with the thought that 1914 evolved from one of the branches of Christendom!
http://www.readex.com/blog/calculating-second-coming-19th-century-america-selected-items-american-pamphlets-1820-1922

I am sure you will agree that because the Bible gives us some numbers and a chronology, it has forever been the quest of believing mankind since the death of Christ, to crack the code of His promised second coming. Especially with the beginning of Adventist movements folks have been trying to figure out the key to WHEN. Russell and his associates were also interested in when. As you probably know, Russell even used the Pyramids to try to calculate Christ's second coming. So the whole period of the Second Awakening revival was focused on figuring all this out. And from that fertile ground came OUR "magical" dates. In fact if you look,  there have been and are "magical" dates floating around all the time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_and_claims_for_the_Second_Coming_of_Christ
 
 
 

"Stick with what we have authorized. You'll be safe." The article just underlines AMIII's admonishment and warning that 'unauthorized' internet activity exposes JWs to "spiritual danger."
Is this forum and those like it GB authorized and approved? Of course not. 
And remember the Question Box from the km 9/07?
"Stick with what we have authorized."
There will always be those who love to research and openly discuss their views online, and thereby have to rationalize away the GB's clear counsel. I say GOOD! because this new article is another attempt at information control.
 

@Jay Witness said that - not me
 

It's fine to believe this, but it's false to claim that the evidence supports it. We have already gone through dozens of examples showing that the Watchtower's chronology is inconsistent. Of course, even more inconsistency is introduced through mixing up the Gentile Times into this. You may have missed previous discussions on that particular topic.
The Bible chronology fits the archaeological evidence from NB chronology. There is no evidence for 607. To get anywhere near 607 you have to accept 539, which you have no right to do if you are going to reject 539 by claiming that Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year was 607. If you are honest, you are forced to reject 539 if you accept 607. You can't cherry pick a range of dates that are interwoven and interlocked through tens of thousands of tablets and at least 10 other completely independent lines of evidence. You can claim whatever you want, but you'd have to show evidence if you are honest.
Your chronology is not at all anchored to 539. By choosing 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year you have rejected 539. Claiming you still want it after you reject it is dishonest. This is probably a difficult concept for anyone who has not really studied the data, and I suspect now, for many reasons, that you have never studied the data. This would explain why you have failed to present or counter any evidence and have merely repeated the mistaken logic and declared it "wondrous."
Your repetition of this particular point tells me again that you have not paid attention even to the Watchtower's explanation or have decided to use the fact that the Bible gives two different counting methods as an opportunity to try to bluster those who will not look into it for themselves. Bluster in this case would be dishonest, but you have failed to give any evidence that you mean to do anything else.
That's fine. But it's meaningless with respect to the Watchtower's misuse of the NB period which is unintelligible and unworkable.
The date 607 is not well-established until at least a tiny piece of evidence can be shown. You have failed to show evidence, but you apparently wish to continue blustering that it is "wondrous" and "well-established." Although you might have a doctrine that makes the same mistakes of prominent German theologians, it is still out of harmony with the words of Jesus. Jesus said that the parousia would come as a surprise and that the times and seasons were only in the Father's jurisdiction. Besides it is even out of harmony with the German theologians in that the Watchtower tied the predictions for 1914 with the reinstatement of the Israelite nation and the demise of all other nations and institutions in 1914. The failure of Israel to dominate in 1914 showed that the Gentile Times prediction failed. John Aquila Brown did not tie the Gentile Times to the 2,520 years having noticed that Revelation only ties the number 1,260 to Jesus words about the Gentile Times. The Bible never mentions "SEVEN Gentile Times." (The closest is Revelation's mention of THREE AND ONE-HALF Gentile Times.)
The capture of Jerusalem by Allied forces in 1917 is a direct admission of the failure of the Gentile Times doctrine. If the Gentile Times had truly ended in 1914, there would be no Gentile forces to capture Jerusalem after 1914. Russell's fixation on the topic of the Jews repatriation to Palestine (Zionism) made him (in)famous, but all those predictions failed, and Rutherford finally dropped them all after 1926.
His study doesn't support our theory at all. Also, Jesus made it clear that the Gentile Times had not started before his own day which would be necessary for the Watchtower's theory to work. More importantly, the Bible undermines the Watchtower's theory. 607 is pseudo-archaeology, but it fails on every other point, too.
Jesus said that this kind of prophecy would be wrong, so I assume that if it builds faith, it must be the wrong kind of faith. Faith in a date, perhaps. Paul said we need nothing to be written to us about dates because the parousia comes as a surprise, like a thief in the night. And the worst part has been all the dead ends that have resulted from our chronological speculations over the years. So far, all the schemes have failed. It's surely better to listen to words of Jesus. He said that if someone claims to be able to show that the end is near, not to go after him. He said that no one would know the day or the hour. He said the parousia will be as sudden as visible as lightning. Surely, we have so many more valuable doctrines to focus on rather than disrespectfully toying with these words of Jesus.
(2 Peter 3:8-15) 8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance. 10 Yet Jehovah’s day will come as a thief, . . . 11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought YOU to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, 12 awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence [PAROUSIA] of the day of Jehovah, t. . . .14 Hence, beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU,

Yes, a lot of Witnesses are quick to deny this because they don't realize that the Watchtower has promoted two different regnal periods for Nebuchadnezzar. And it's completely unnecessary if you are willing to accept the Bible's timeline. The Bible's timeline is corroborated by archaeological evidence, too. But the Bible's timeline is not that helpful for pushing 1914, so it's adjusted here to put more emphasis on 607.
And it wasn't just done for Nebuchadnezzar. A lot of Witnesses are probably not aware that the timeline has been tampered with so that Jehoiakim has "yet another different regnal period" too.
Your quote from page 463 is actually one I was about to include because it very clearly shows some of the points I was making. Thanks. If the 11th year of Zedekiah marked a regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar that started in 607, then this really is "yet another different regnal period for Nebuchadnezzar" that started in 625. Don't you agree? The Insight book is numbering Nebuchadnezzar's reign from two different accession years: 625 and 607. Neither is correct, of course, from the perspective of the Biblical and historical evidence. The point is clearly to avoid the idea that Nebuchadnezzar was taking exiles from this early in his reign, which would lend support to the idea in Jeremiah (and Daniel) that the 70 years for Babylon in Jeremiah referred to the period of Babylon's greatest domination. Of course, Daniel also agrees with the Babylonian archaeological records here, too, which state that Babylon was taking things from Judea from the very earliest years of his reign, or even before, during his father's reign.
And, as I said, the Watchtower chronology also prefers to give Jehoiakim "yet another different regnal period" because this one also fits the Biblical and secular chronology, but does not fit the Watchtower "chronology" as well. (Here again, the Bible also fits the archaeological evidence in both cases, but this is not as important, evidently, as force-fitting 1914.) Compare these two references from "Insight."
*** it-1 p. 576 Daniel ***
This was in Jehoiakim’s third year (as tributary king to Babylon), which third year started in the spring of 618 B.C.E. (Da 1:1) *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.) Counting from his first year as his accession year, Jehoiakim's third year would have been about 625 B.C.E, not 618 (both Watchtower dates) based on the date range below, where his accession year would be 628, first year 627, second year 626 and third year 625. 625 is of course Watchtower-speak for 605 the same year that Babylon beat both Assyria and Egypt making a last stand together at the battle of Carchemish.
** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
Jehoiakim’s bad rule of about 11 years (628-618 B.C.E.) The reason the Watchtower doesn't like the Bible's account here is because it would have Nebuchadnezzar beginning his devastations and depredations in Judea even earlier than 625, which would mean that the 70 years that Jeremiah speaks of for Babylon's domination would clearly be closer to 90 instead of 70 years.
But both Babylonian records and the Bible shows that the devastation began even earlier, from very near the very beginning of the 70 years that the nations would begin serving Babylon. Note:
(2 Kings 23:36-24:1) 36 Je·hoiʹa·kim was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem. . . . In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years.. . . Biblical and secular chronology would put the start of Jehoiakim's reign in about 608 B.C.E, which would be the earliest that Judea under Jehoiakim could have suffered depredations under Nebuchadnezzar. [And no later than 600 to account for 3 years of servitude.] (That's 608+20=628 in Watchtower chronology.)
In fact it was "early in Jehoiakim's reign" that Jeremiah already had an eye on Babylon and the destruction of Jerusalem:
*** it-1 p. 1268 Jehoiakim ***
Early in Jehoiakim’s reign Jeremiah warned that unless the people repented, Jerusalem and her temple would be destroyed. In fact the incursions by Egypt, Assyria and Babylon could have been nearly simultaneous for a time around 609 up through about 605 as the third year of Jehoiakim would have included the battle of Carchemish, won by Babylon, after a few years of battles in 609 when Egypt's Necho killed Judah's King Josiah, and Babylon overtook Assyria's Harran. Carchemish would would have then been in the third official year of Jehoiakim's reign. The situation fits 2 Kings 24:1-7:
(2 Kings 24:1, 2, 7) . . .In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled. 2 Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites.. . . Never again did the king of Egypt venture out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt, from the Wadi of Egypt up to the Eu·phraʹtes River. In those years from 609 through 605, Egypt and Assyria are finally boxed in and Babylon is the primary, ascendant power, having toppled Assyria as the power to fear back in 609, and having been the strongest power for Judea to fear since that date.
And, as mentioned, even though the Watchtower publications cannot accept it, we have the Biblical statement in Daniel which is corroborated in the Babylonian Chronicles:
(Daniel 1:1-4) 1 In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, along with some of the utensils of the house of the true God, and he brought them to the land of Shiʹnar to the house of his god. He placed the utensils in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. 4 They were to be youths without any defect, of good appearance, endowed with wisdom, knowledge, and discernment, and capable of serving in the king’s palace.. . Notice that this is a perfect fit for 605 B.C.E. (625 Watchtower date), even though the Watchtower dating scheme does not like the term "third year of Jehoiakim" here. So it has to be reinterpreted in the Watchtower as closer to the end, not the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign.
A portion of the archaeological evidence is mentioned in Insight, where Hattu clearly includes Judea, and 625 is "Watchtower-speak" for 605, and 624 is 604:
*** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
Historical notices in cuneiform inscriptions presently available about Nebuchadnezzar somewhat supplement the Bible record. They state that it was in the 19th year of Nabopolassar’s reign that he assembled his army, as did his son Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince. Both armies evidently functioned independently, and after Nabopolassar went back to Babylon within a month’s time, Nebuchadnezzar successfully warred in mountainous territory, later returning to Babylon with much spoil. During the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign, Nebuchadnezzar marched with the Babylonian army to Carchemish, there to fight against the Egyptians. He led his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2.
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. During his second, third, and fourth years as king he conducted additional campaigns in Hattu, and evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King Jehoiakim his vassal. (2Ki 24:1)  
 

Thanks for all your comments.  
Yes, I doctored the image. It was partly fun, partly to make a point.
However, you all immediately noticed something was 'off' and you could compare with the original on the jw. org site. And yet, there is no guarantee that the spiritual food on the jw. org website hasn't been altered either. 
Consider this:
A critic of JWs may allege that there was an Awake! article on the topic of Creation and Evolution that misused a respected scientist's quote. 
A JW may retort that the magazines NEVER misuse quotations because the writers research very carefully and honestly - there was even a recent Broadcast showing us this was so. The critic must be LYING!
So the critic produces this scan with the relevant part marked in red:
:
But there is no sign of this particular quote on jw. org nor in the downloadable digital versions. Other than the red marking, has the image otherwise been doctored? Is this critic trying to pull a fast one?
It turns out that the scientist complained to the Org about the magazine's use of his quote and the Org removed the quote from the website's article and the digital download editions. The quote will still be found in the original hard copies and downloaded editions saved to people's computers.
The critic was telling the truth and, apart from the red marking, the scan was a true representation of the original page.
You see, just because the publications are reproduced on other sites, it doesn't mean that the content has been tampered with. Equally, just because a publication appears on the jw. org website, there is no guarantee that the content has not been tampered with - whether it is due to a scientist's complaint about how his work was used, or due to new understandings in doctrine. Website content is so easy to edit now.
@Anna  made the point about it not violating copyright to post links to the jw. org site. True. The article says:
But the receiver of the email-attached copy isn't getting it direct from the official website. S/he's getting it from a secondary source and we're back to this.
Which raises a question: If one plays safe and emails a link to the Org's publications page instead, would the 'link share' count as a placement on the report slip?
@Witness said about there still being Facebook pages for Lett and Morris. I guess we are to understand these are fraudulent.
And finally, the reasons for the thread title:
This is the GB's 'loving counsel' folks. Discussion of JW publications on these forums is dangerous, inappropriate, and some JW 'brothers' who have participated have made Jehovah the Org look bad. 
So, time to pack up, shut up shop and go home .... *sniff*
?
.... Bwahahaha! 
Are you kidding? It's much too late to stuff the genie of free online discussion back into its bottle! 
To quote Leah Remini:
 

This interesting comment indicates that the person who is doing the shunning also feels uncomfortable doing it. Many of us know how psychologically damaging it is for the 'shunnee,' but I think we forget how damaging it also is for the 'shunner.'
"If you think giving someone the cold shoulder inflicts pain only on them, beware. A new study shows that individuals who deliberately shun another person are equally distressed by the experience." - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305080452.htm
This presupposes that the elders who chose to disfellowship saw into the sinner's heart perfectly and made a perfect decision. It also presupposes that a disfellowshipped person can never be redeemed. Somehow I don't think you really believe that. 

Yes, I see it.
 

I get what you're saying, but that nuance is not included in the article. I think many would take away that they shouldn't share JW content at all...even quoting it. Apostate websites "use our publications" in what way? Usually, they're quoting and crediting the WT. To dismiss the credibility of any websites that isn't approved...that's a control measure in the uncontrollable world of the internet. 
And this additional point 'Furthermore, posting our publications on websites that allow comments provides a place for apostates and other critics to sow distrust of Jehovah’s organization. Some brothers have been drawn into online debates and thus have brought added reproach on Jehovah’s name. An online forum is not an appropriate setting for “instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.”' Sounds like another control grab. They don't want people having online discussions independent of the org, and that's sad. 

Yep. Looks like it got run over with a tank and had acid poured on it.

I am still of the opinion that this secular date of 607 doesn't matter that much. Millions of JWs believe it was when the city of Jerusalem and the land of Judea was desolated, and the year the last Davidic king was deposed. For many years now, I've known that there is overwhelming evidence against this date, and overwhelming evidence that it actually happened 20 years after the date that our publications promote. Again, I don't think anyone should make a big deal about a date, and the date is "in the same ball-park," only a couple of decades off. That's less than 1% error for an event that happened about 2,624 years ago.
Millions of Witnesses who accept it do not have any reason to look into it to make sure about it. Why should they? Witnesses should have no reason to be skeptical of the publications, and the publications state very clearly that 607 is the secular date for this Biblical event, without question. I think that it is to be expected, therefore, that most of us will merely defend the date 607 because of the way it is presented in the publications. It appears to be what we should do. It is transparent on this forum that defending 607 has become another way of defending "slave" itself, which has become part of the belief and faith that we naturally defend from a scriptural point of view:
(1 Peter 3:15) . . ., always ready to make a defense before everyone who demands of you a reason for the hope you have. . . So all of us have that scriptural desire and reason to defend our beliefs, which is why I am sure that you and Arauna and others are presenting your views honestly, and with the right motive. My own reason for concern is not so much about the date itself, as explained above, but just an explanation of why I myself cannot honestly promote it. For me it's much more about honesty than the date itself. Looking very carefully and prayerfully at our own explanations in our publications I can see no Biblical reason to concern ourselves with either 607 or 587 or 539 or 537, whether the dates are correct or not. These dates are only as valuable to us as say 1513 B.C.E. or 740 B.C.E.
But I also believe I see evidence that the "slave" does not believe in 607, either. I believe the "slave" must feel trapped into this belief and have not yet found a clear way out. I base this opinion on the way in which the writers deal with evidence that reveals that the writers don't want the evidence questioned because they know what will be found. This shows a fear of the evidence. The very careful way in which they dealt with Furuli's evidence in October and November 2011 was very revealing. Even Insight shows that the writers knew more than they could say.
In fact, it is made to appear that this secular date has scholarly support. In many scholarly publications you will see a "c." for "circa" or "about" in front of a date, or else a range of dates is mentioned so that you can know that there is a measure of uncertainty. The Insight book does this too, in places -- but NEVER for 607. Here's an example:
*** it-1 p. 192 Ashkelon ***
In the prophecy of Amos (c. 804 B.C.E.) prediction was made of defeat for the ruler of Ashkelon. (Am 1:8) Secular history shows that in the succeeding century Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria made Asqaluna (Ashkelon) a vassal city. Jeremiah (after 647 B.C.E.) uttered two prophecies involving Ashkelon. While Jeremiah 47:2-7 could have seen some fulfillment when Nebuchadnezzar sacked the city early in his reign (c. 624 B.C.E.), the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:17-20, 28, 29 clearly indicates a fulfillment subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. Zephaniah’s prophecy (written before 648 B.C.E.) also foretold a coming desolation for Ashkelon, along with other Philistine cities, after which the remnant of Judah would eventually occupy “the houses of Ashkelon.” (Zep 2:4-7) Finally, about 518 B.C.E., Zechariah proclaimed doom for Ashkelon . . .
In fact, the 607-date chronology is inserted into quotes and references from authorities as if it were referenced from there when it was not.
*** it-1 p. 1025 Hamath ***
According to an extant cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946), after the battle of Carchemish in 625 B.C.E. (Jer 46:2), Nebuchadnezzar’s forces overtook and destroyed the fleeing Egyptians in the district of Hamath. (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 99) In this same area, a few years earlier, Pharaoh Nechoh had taken King Jehoahaz captive. (2Ki 23:31-33) Then in 607 B.C.E., with the fall of Jerusalem, . . . *** it-2 p. 480 Nebuchadnezzar ***
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and “in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship, Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. *** it-1 p. 1267 Jehoiachin ***
It appears that Jehoiakim died during this siege and Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. His rule ended, however, a mere three months and ten days later, when he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar in 617 B.C.E. (in the month of Adar, according to a Babylonian chronicle). (2Ki 24:11, 12; 2Ch 36:9; Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 102) *** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
One fragmentary Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.), does, in fact, mention a campaign against Egypt. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 308) *** it-1 p. 238 Babylon ***
That year, 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem was laid desolate, was a significant one in the counting of time until Jehovah, the Universal Sovereign, would set up the world ruler of his choice in Kingdom power. . . . One cuneiform tablet has been found referring to a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year (588 B.C.E.). Grayson and Pritchard, although referenced as authorities, actually offer contrary evidence, showing that the event marked here for 624 was actually 604, 625 was actually 605, 617 was 597, and the event marked here for 588 is actually 568 -- therefore the date marked 607 would actually be 587.
So although the Jerusalem event marked 607 was actually 587/6, according to all the referenced authorities found in Insight (these and dozens of others, including those not referenced), the Insight book chooses to refer to 607 as if it has never been questioned. Insight mentions the date 607 authoritatively, about 150 times.
To keep 607 in the limelight and evidently to avoid questions about thinking about the Biblical definition of the 70 years, the Insight book not only says 607 was Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, but also claims it was his "1st year" by another reckoning. Compare these two claims from Insight:
*** it-1 pp. 1185-1186 Image ***
Images in the Book of Daniel. In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship (evidently counting from the time of his conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.), the Babylonian king had a dream . . . *** it-1 p. 463 Chronology ***
the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.). So Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was both 625 and 607 according to the Insight book. Yet Grayson, Pritchard and a thousand other sources would agree that it was 605.
Also, to keep 607 in the limelight the events of 598 and 589 through 587 are sometimes tied to just 607 as the "pivotal" year. For example, note that this last siege lasted for a year and a half, and a siege prior to this was about 10 years earlier. 
*** it-2 p. 1065 Tammuz, II ***
It was on the ninth day of this fourth month (Tammuz) that Nebuchadnezzar breached the walls of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. after an 18-month siege. Insight often admits that the siege was dated 2 years earlier and 10/11 years earlier, but notice the shorthand sometimes preferred for referencing Jerusalem's siege:
*** it-1 p. 1242 Jackal ***
Babylon’s siege of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. brought the stress of famine, with the result that mothers treated their own offspring cruelly. Thus Jeremiah appropriately contrasted the cruelty “of my people” with the jackals’ maternal care.—La 4:3, 10. The point, of course, is that the one date most in question of all dates that the Society uses, is always presented as if it is the one date least in question. It is repeated 150 times in the Insight book alone. And dates that fall within the period, including 625, 624, 617, 609, 607, 539 and 537 (more likely, the actual dates 605, 604, 598, 589, 587, 539 and 538) -- these dates make up the majority, by far, of all the dates ever mentioned in the entire Insight book, including all mentions of 29 C.E. and 33 C.E. put together.
Compare the case of 607 carefully with how we deal with evidence or "no evidence" in other doctrinal matters. I thought it was very revealing. In matters like "stauros" and several others, for example, the publications don't show the same fear and avoidance of the evidence.